I care because it is a litmus test of those who claim for themselves the gift of discernment.

Should we not expect those who claim the mantle of prophet meet a certain minimum criteria of validation? If those who tell us they are our prophets make the claim that they have a gift which allows them to see into the hearts of men and detect the deceptions and dishonesty therein, shouldn't they then be held to that very standard they set for themselves?

Oaks (a relative of mine through his first marriage, as full disclosure) met with Hoffman a number of times prior to the bombings, along with Hinckley and others. Hoffman was foisting forgeries from almost the very beginning, for, what? four years? At what point is it safe to conclude that absolutely zero 'discernment' was happening?

We do not go to our prophets and demand that they have the 'gift of discernment', this is something they claim for themselves. And when it becomes obvious, painfully, strikingly obvious, that they have no such gift, can we be faulted for questioning their claim to the mantle itself?

Of course, all this can be fixed with a postscript written by Oaks himself who explained that he cannot realistically approach every person he meets with a degree of skepticism, you see. That would cause too many problems. Oh, they have the gift of discernment, but they keep it switched off so as to avoid insulting people. Hmmm. Yeah, that sounds ok...

You forget that apologists on another thread have said God doesn't care and won't intervene.

Did Elder Oaks ever claim he had the ability to "see into the hearts of men and detect the deceptions and dishonesty therein"? That surely would have come in handy when he was a judge. He wouldn't even need to hear evidence. He could just look at the defendant and determine guilt or innocence right on the spot.

In a way yes. This is what we are taught. Now Oaks time as a judge is not the same, because it was not a church calling. As an apostle this is one of the gifts they are suppose to have, and it makes sense for them to have it if God is really in charge. Even lowly Bishops are suppose to have it. What gets apologists mad is that critics(and some members) bring up the apparent lack of discernment with some of the most important times it would be needed. Don't blame the critic :)

"The angel Moroni could be described as a salamander from within a magical world view."

How nice. The Bible and world religions are so full of accounts of men and prophets mixing up Angels and heavenly messengers with salamanders. Jonah must have gotten his angels confused with whales, perfectly plausible to any old fly tying fisherman, right?

Not curiouser and curioser: dumber and dumber.

_________________"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson

Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?

infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."